DOCSLIB.ORG

An Evaluation of Cetacean Bycatch in UK Fisheries: Problems and Solutions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

An evAluAtion of cetAceAn bycAtch in uK fisheries:

problems And solutions

A report to WDC and HSI

Russell Leaper | February 2021

1

summAry

Cetacean bycatch has been a serious and persistent welfare and conservation issue in UK waters for many years. The most recent estimates indicate that over 1000 cetaceans are killed each year in UK fisheries. The species most affected are harbour porpoise, common dolphin, minke and humpback whale, but all cetaceans in UK waters are vulnerable. The level of suffering for mammals that become entangled in fishing gear has been described as ‘one of the grossest abuses of wild animal sensibility in the modern world’.

Although potential solutions exist, the mitigation efforts to date have only achieved small reductions in the numbers of animals that are killed. The Fisheries Act 2020 commits the UK to minimise and, where possible, eliminate bycatch of sensitive species. The Act does not include details of how to achieve this, but requires reconsideration of fisheries management and practices, the phasing out of some gears, and a change of approach from strategies previously pursued.

While gill nets are recognised as the highest risk gear category globally for cetacean bycatch, there are also serious bycatch problems associated with trawl fisheries and with creel fisheries using pots and traps. The different characteristics of these gear types and the types and size of vessels involved, require different approaches to bycatch monitoring and mitigation.

Acoustic deterrent devices (ADDs), such as ‘pingers’, have been shown to be effective at reducing harbour porpoise bycatch in gill nets, but the reduction achieved so far has been small, they may cause unwanted disturbance or displacement, and they may not be effective for other species. Gill nets are a very small proportion of total UK fisheries (2% of value) but cause most of the cetacean bycatch. Hence there should be increased attention to moving away from gill nets towards alternative gears.

There is a very large bycatch problem for common dolphins associated with trawl fisheries in the Bay of Biscay. Although this is occurring in adjacent rather than UK waters, adequate monitoring of similar trawl fisheries in UK waters is needed in order to enable a rapid response to indications of any changes in dolphin distribution or fishing effort that might result in bycatch, even for fisheries that currently appear to be lower risk. Mitigation plans that can be put into action as soon as there is any evidence that bycatch is occurring should be developed for all trawl fisheries that may pose a risk. Such plans could include testing strategies such as a ‘moving on’ procedure, where fishing activity moves away from areas –where bycatch is occurring.

Creel fisheries pose an entanglement risk to cetaceans, especially larger species such as minke and humpback whales. Unlike gill nets which are often designed to catch species of similar size to a small cetacean, entanglements in creel gear involve interactions with parts of the gear that are not related to catching the target species. Thus, there is much greater scope for technical modifications to creel gears to reduce entanglement risk without affecting the target catch than there is for other gears such as gill nets.

2

introduction

Fisheries bycatch, including of cetaceans, seals, turtles and birds, is a welfare and conservation problem for many UK fisheries. The Fisheries Act 20201 contains a commitment that ‘incidental catches of sensitive species are minimised and, where possible, eliminated’ but does not provide details about how this might be achieved. With regards to cetacean bycatch, there has been a similar UK objective to that of the Fisheries Act for decades, as a Party to the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Sea (ASCOBANS), which has a target of reducing cetacean bycatch to zero.

However, thus far the only tangible steps that the UK has taken towards this target in terms of mitigation have been as part of the UK’s obligations under EU Regulation 812/2004 which required the use of pingers on some gill nets in certain areas. This has contributed to an annual reduction of less than 15% of the total number of cetaceans that are killed in UK fisheries. Nevertheless, the UK Government has stated that the Fisheries Act will ensure that ‘sensitive marine species, such as dolphins, are protected2 suggesting there is now a greater commitment to eliminating cetacean bycatch.

The result of previous inaction is that cetacean bycatch is a problem that has effectively continued largely unabated in UK fisheries. This should be viewed in the context not only of international conservation obligations, but also of strong public concern over the welfare of marine mammals. The level of suffering for mammals that become entangled in fishing gear has been described as ‘one of the grossest abuses of wild animal sensibility in the modern world2.

The types of UK fisheries which have the highest risk of cetacean bycatch can be separated into three main types:

(1) gill nets are recognised as the highest risk gear category globally and pose a serious risk to harbour porpoise wherever they are used around the UK and other cetaceans where their distribution overlaps with gill net use;

(2) trawls have lower bycatch rates in UK fisheries but trawl fisheries in waters adjacent to those of the UK in the Bay of Biscay have a high bycatch of common dolphins;

(3) creels (pots and traps) are largely considered to be a relatively environmentally friendly form of fishing but present an entanglement risk, particularly to large whales.

The different characteristics of these gear types and the different types of vessels involved require different approaches to bycatch monitoring and mitigation. At the ‘Hauling up Solutions’ bycatch workshop in March 2019, it was recognised that monitoring and mitigation should be brought together as part of collaborative efforts between the fishing industry and other stakeholders4. For most UK fisheries using high risk gears there is a need for expanded independent monitoring in order to estimate total cetacean bycatch but already sufficient evidence of a bycatch problem to implement measures involving concurrent mitigation and monitoring. The collaborative effort required to work with fishermen to develop effective monitoring can also lead directly to a more proactive approach with actions to reduce bycatch. For those trawl fisheries which currently do not have a bycatch problem but use similar gear to that which is known to create a high risk in other areas there is a need for an awareness that problems may develop quickly and require a rapid response.

[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/22/contents/enacted [2] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/flagship-fisheries-bill-becomes-law [3] M. Moore, A. Bogomolni, R. Bowman, P. Hamilton, C. Harry, A. Knowlton, S. Landry, D.S. Rotstein, K. Touhey, Fatally entangled right whales can die extremely slowly, Oceans 06, MTS-IEEE-Boston, Massachusetts, September 18–21, 2006, p.1–3. [4] https://www.cefas.co.uk/cetacean-bycatch-workshop/

3

Gill nets

Gill net effort is recorded in UK fisheries statistics as ‘drift and fixed nets’ which includes a number of types of gear. Most UK gill nets are fixed set nets that are anchored to the sea bed (FAO code GNS). Set gill nets consist of a single vertical netting wall hanging between a float line and a weighted ground line. Other types of gill nets include tangle nets which are often set close to the sea bed and trammel nets (FAO code GTR, GTN) with layers of different mesh sizes, which are designed to entangle fish rather than simply trapping them by the gills5.

Distribution of UK effort (indicated by live weight landed in ICES rectangles)

Figure 1. Distribution of UK gill net (drift and set) live weight catches (Data from UK sea fisheries annual statistics report 2018)

4

mAin species cAuGht

The top species caught in UK gill net fisheries by weight are monkfish and anglerfish (reported in UK data6 as a single category, ‘monks and anglers’), hake, pollack, sole and thornback ray. The main species caught by value are shown in Figure 2; although catches by weight of turbot and bass are lower than thornback ray, they are of higher value. In 2018, gill nets contributed 2% of UK live weight landings and 2% of the value. Most gill net vessels are less than 10m which is the vessel length at which many regulations change. The total value of gill net (termed ‘drift and set net’ in UK data) fisheries landings in 2018 was £24m. Prices for the most commonly caught species in 2018 varied from £2,100 per tonne for pollack up to £11,000 per tonne for turbot.

Figure 2. Main species caught in gill nets by value (Data from UK sea fisheries annual statistics report 2018)

mAin bycAtch concerns

Gill nets are recognised as the highest risk type of fishery for cetaceans globally, especially for small cetaceans in coastal areas. In the UK, the species most affected is the harbour porpoise, but a number of other species have been reported, and it should be assumed that most cetaceans are vulnerable to gill net bycatch. Northridge et al. (2019) estimated that the annual harbour porpoise bycatch in all UK gill net fisheries for 2018 would be between 845 and 1633 animals (best estimate 1150; CV=0.087) if there was no pinger use, but that this would likely have been reduced by around 200 animals if all boats over 12 m used pingers in the areas where these are required (the pinger requirements of EU Regulation 812/2004 which were also carried forward into EU 2019/1241 applied to 24 UK registered vessels in 2018). The equivalent annual estimate for common dolphin was 248 individuals (range 171-452) and for seals 474 (range 376-691) (pinger requirements have not been shown to impact the bycatch rates of these taxa in gillnets). All the estimates come with a number of caveats because of limitations of the data on effort. This meant that it had to be assumed that net lengths were the same regardless of vessel size resulting in likely underestimation of bycatch from larger offshore vessels and overestimation for smaller inshore vessels (Northridge et al. 2019).

Calderan and Leaper (2019) note that the overlap of porpoise distribution and gill net effort indicates three main high risk areas for bycatch: NW of Shetland, SE England from Essex to Sussex, and SW England including the Celtic Shelf and SW Approaches. Of these, the SW areas have been the most intensively monitored; the SE is a recognised concern with large numbers of strandings showing evidence of bycatch but very limited observer data; deep water fisheries for monkfish and anglerfish NW of Shetland have no information about bycatch and very limited data on the fisheries themselves.

5

[5] See http://www.fao.org/fishery/geartype/223/en [6] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-sea-fisheries-annual-statistics-report-2019

Of the different types of gill net, tangle/trammel nets appear to be the highest risk to harbour porpoise, with rates around three times higher than the unspecified gill net category (Northridge et al. 2018). This results in estimates of around 45% of UK harbour porpoise bycatch being in trammel/tangle nets, making them the largest contributor from the different gill net metiers. Studies in the Netherlands also identified trammel nets as the highest risk (Scheidat et al. 2019). Tangle/trammel nets also have a much higher bycatch rate of common dolphins than other gill net types (Northridge and Kingston, 2009; ICES, 2020). Worth mentioning the high levels of porpoise bycatch in the Celtic Sea, that ICES have identified.

UK fisheries only contribute a proportion of the total bycatch mortality for harbour porpoise and common dolphin populations in the North Atlantic. ICES has considered estimates of bycatch by ecoregion7 which do not necessarily follow population boundaries. For harbour porpoise, ICES (2019) found that the estimated bycatch mortality of the subpopulation in the Celtic Seas assessment unit including also the eastern Bay of Biscay Shelf, ranged between 2.12% and 5.57% (536–1409 individuals per annum) of the population estimate. The estimated average annual common dolphin bycatch from all gill net fisheries in the Celtic Seas ecoregion for the period 2016-2018 was 180 dolphins (95% CI 80 – 280) out of a total estimate of 720 common dolphins bycaught in the Celtic Seas. The Celtic Seas region accounts for around 15% of the estimated common dolphin bycatch from the Northeast Atlantic with the majority (85%) occurring in the Bay of Biscay (ICES, 2020).

monitorinG requirements

UK gill net fisheries have had higher levels of monitoring than other sectors due to the higher rates of bycatch. Initial monitoring from 2005, as a requirement under Regulation 812/2004, was directed at >15m vessels, but in recent years there has been more effort to monitor smaller vessels. Most of the monitoring has occurred in SW England, although estimates have been made for the southern North Sea and Channel. In 2018, there were 172 dedicated protected species bycatch monitoring days conducted during 150 trips on board static net vessels with an additional 100 days of non-dedicated observer monitoring (Northridge et al. 2019). There has been almost no monitoring of deep water gill net fisheries west of Shetland; there are very limited data on this fishery even though it is one of the fisheries required to use pingers due to vessel length and mesh size. Estimates for SE England (ICES 4c) suggest a substantial harbour porpoise bycatch (Northridge et al. 2019), but there has been relatively little monitoring in this area compared to SW England.

meAsures to reduce bycAtch

Pingers were required to be used by 24 vessels using gill nets in UK waters in 2018 (Northridge et al. 2019), many of these were in the SW of England where pingers are also being used as part of an ongoing industry-led cetacean bycatch monitoring trial from one port in Cornwall organised by DEFRA/CEFAS and the Cornwall Regional Bycatch Focus Group, but the majority of gill net fishing effort in the area is from the under 12m fleet which have not been required to use pingers. Pingers are required for set net fisheries west of Shetland where the four UK vessels operating in 2017 were greater than 15m and using a mesh size >220mm. In some areas, nets properly equipped with pingers have been found to have an 83% lower bycatch rate of harbour porpoise compared to nets with no pingers, but there has not been any obvious significant reduction in common dolphin bycatch rates when pingers are in use (Northridge et al. 2019).

Although pingers can be quite effective for porpoises, and other technical mitigation methods have also been investigated (see IWC, 2020), gill nets will always pose a risk to small cetaceans as they are designed to target fish species of a similar size. There should therefore be increased attention focused on moving away from gill nets towards alternative gears given gill nets’ large contribution to UK

6

[7] https://www.ices.dk/advice/ICES%20ecoregions%20and%20advisory%20areas/Pages/ICES-ecosystems-and-advisory-areas.aspx

cetacean bycatch compared to their small proportion of the value of annual UK landings. Many of the commercial fish species caught in gill nets are already also caught by other means, particularly hook and line gears. Fish caught using hooks can also be of better quality and higher value (Santos et al. 2002). Calderan and Leaper (2019) identified fisheries for hake, pollack, thornback ray, ling and cod as having most potential for switching to gear using hooks. For the UK under 10m fleet, the average daily income is higher for vessels using gear with hooks compared to gill nets and also operating costs are lower due to less fuel consumption (Seafish, 2017). Creel fishing using pots and traps may also be effective for some species, particularly where there is potential for value-maximisation and a higher price for higher quality fish (e.g. Meintzer et al. 2018).

trAwls

UK trawl fisheries which include a number of different types of trawl (e.g. bottom and mid-water otter trawls, otter twin trawls, mid-water pair trawls) which create different levels of risk of cetacean bycatch.

Distribution of UK effort

Figure 3. Trawling occurs throughout UK waters but some trawl types have a low bycatch risk. This plot shows the distribution of UK trawl catch of hake and megrim (live weight) by ICES rectangle. These are fisheries targeting similar species to those in Biscay that have a very high bycatch of common dolphin and occur in areas of relatively high dolphin density (Data from UK sea fisheries annual statistics report 2018).

7

mAin species cAuGht by vAlue

UK trawl fisheries are diverse and dominate UK fisheries in terms of landed weight (79% of total) and value (64% of total). The main species by weight are mackerel, herring, blue whiting, haddock and cod, but a wide variety of other species are also caught. Although nephrops (Norway lobster) catches by weight are quite low, they are high value (Figure 4). Average prices in 2018 ranged from £5,300 per tonne for nephrops to £440 per tonne for herring. The total landed value from UK trawl fisheries in 2018 was £638m.

Figure 4. Main species caught in trawl fisheries by value (Data from UK sea fisheries annual statistics report 2018).

mAin bycAtch concerns

Concerns over bycatch in trawl fisheries are mainly related to common dolphins but other dolphin species are also known to be vulnerable. Harbour porpoises have also been reported as bycatch in bottom and midwater otter trawls as well as in mid-water pair trawls in other areas (ICES, 2020). Levels of bycatch are dependent on both the type of trawl and the overlap with cetacean distribution. Pair trawls generally appear to be high risk, and in the Bay of Biscay bottom and mid-water pair trawls are associated with high levels of common dolphin bycatch (ICES, 2020).

monitorinG requirements

A number of UK trawl fisheries have been monitored through dedicated onboard bycatch observers and also observers whose main duties were fisheries-related. Generally low bycatch rates in most pelagic trawl fisheries has led to a gradual reduction in dedicated bycatch monitoring of this gear type. In 2016, dedicated sampling in pelagic trawl fisheries was just 23 days (Northridge et al. 2017). However, observations are also made as part of discard sampling programmes and in 2018 there were 571 days on a variety of demersal trawl or dredge gears with no marine mammal bycatch observed (Northridge et al. 2019).

However, trawl fisheries have high variability in bycatch rates which probably reflects small scale changes in the overlap between the

8

fisheries and cetacean distribution. For example, bycatch in the pelagic pair trawl fishery for bass in the western channel exceeded 400 animals in 2004 compared to just 40 in 2002 despite similar fishing effort (Northridge et al. 2009). Another example is the French pelagic trawl fishery for tuna in ICES Areas 6, 7 and 8. In 2009, around 900 common dolphins were estimated bycaught whereas in previous years this fishery had been estimated to have an annual average of less than 100 (ICES, 2020). Differences in trawling techniques and dolphin behaviour have also been found to influence the rates of dolphin capture in an Australian trawl fishery (Fernández- Contreras et al. 2010, Allen et al. 2014). These factors all present a challenge for designing monitoring schemes. Monitoring and mitigation need to be able to respond rapidly to indications that a fishery might have a high bycatch even if it has previously been judged to be of low risk.

meAsures to reduce bycAtch

The factors that most affect bycatch risk in relation to the design and operation of trawls are not well understood, but pair trawling does appear to have a higher risk than trawls from single vessels. There is some evidence that a higher vertical opening also increases risk (Fernández- Contreras et al. 2010). Nets with a Very High Vertical Opening (VHVO), which can be 25m in height when used by pair trawls are likely to be particularly high risk. In some areas bycatch rates at night have been higher than during daylight, and some indications that dolphins are most likely to be caught when the net is being hauled (Morizur et al., 1999).

The current priority in the Northeast Atlantic related to bycatch in trawls is to reduce the numbers of common dolphins killed in the Bay of Biscay, where bycatch levels are very high. Pingers have been used in some trawl fisheries and experiments with the high intensity DDD-03 pingers in the English Channel pair trawl fishery for bass suggested a 75-90% reduction in optimally pingered hauls (Northridge et al. 2011). A more recent study carried out in the Bay of Biscay on three midwater pair trawl teams in winter 2018 also used the DDD- 03 pingers and suggested a reduction in bycatch rates of common dolphins of 65% (ICES, 2020). Following this experiment, the use of pingers became mandatory for all French midwater trawlers (OTM and PTM) in the Bay of Biscay. However, strandings for the winter 2019/20 were the highest ever recorded in the French time series so it is not clear whether the pingers were less effective than expected or that the majority of the bycatch was coming from other fisheries.

Other mitigation methods have involved modifications to trawls to enable dolphins to escape through various designs of escape panels. None of these designs have proven consistently effective (Leaper and Calderan, 2017). There may also be potential for fishing to shift area when dolphins are encountered. This ‘moving on’ procedure has yet to be properly tested as a mitigation strategy. The IWC Scientific Committee recommended testing ‘moving on’ as a mitigation as a possible alternative to fishery closures in the Bay of Biscay but noted that full monitoring coverage (either through observers or electronic monitoring) is required to facilitate compliance with and monitoring of ‘moving on’ procedures as a mitigation measure and further work is needed to specify what a moving on procedure should involve (IWC, 2019).

Recommended publications
  • Hauling up Solutions

    Hauling up Solutions

    HAULING UP SOLUTIONS REDUCING CETACEAN BYCATCH IN UK FISHERIES WORKSHOP REPORT HAULING UP SOLUTIONS REPORT 1 CONTENTS CONTENTS 1 SECTION ONE: SUMMARY 2 SECTION TWO: BACKGROUND 6 SECTION THREE: INTRODUCTION TO THE ISSUE 10 SECTION FOUR: MONITORING 14 SECTION FIVE: MITIGATION 17 SECTION SIX: RECOMMENDATIONS 26 SECTION SEVEN: NEXT STEPS 28 SECTION EIGHT: STAY IN TOUCH & GLOSSARY 30 ANNEX: REFERENCES, WORKSHOP PRESENTERS REPORT CITATION Tindall, C., Hetherington, S., Bell, C., Deaville, R., Barker, J., Borrow, K., Oakley, M., Bendall, V., Engelhard, G. (Eds) (2019) Hauling Up Solutions: Reducing Cetacean Bycatch in UK Fisheries. Final Workshop Report. 31 pp. www.cefas.co.uk/cetacean-by-catch-workshop. CHATHAM HOUSE RULE This report gives a summary of a participatory workshop on cetacean bycatch held at the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) on 12-13 March 2019 held under the Chatham House Rule. As a result, no comments are affiliated to any individual or organisation apart from direct quotes, for which permission was sought. i HAULING UP SOLUTIONS REPORT SECTION ONE SUMMARY Accidental capture in fishing gear (bycatch) is one of the greatest threats faced globally by cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) and has contributed to the decline and extinction of some populations and species1. Cetacean bycatch is problematic as it represents a welfare issue for individuals caught which is of public concern; an economic cost to fishermen owing to the time taken to clear and repair damaged gear, and the subsequent lost catch; an issue of safety for fishermen when clearing nets; as well as a potential conservation concern for some species or populations.
  • Cetacean Rapid Assessment: an Approach to Fill Knowledge Gaps and Target Conservation Across Large Data Deficient Areas

    Cetacean Rapid Assessment: an Approach to Fill Knowledge Gaps and Target Conservation Across Large Data Deficient Areas

    Received: 9 January 2017 Revised: 19 June 2017 Accepted: 17 July 2017 DOI: 10.1002/aqc.2833 RESEARCH ARTICLE Cetacean rapid assessment: An approach to fill knowledge gaps and target conservation across large data deficient areas Gill T. Braulik1,2 | Magreth Kasuga1 | Anja Wittich3 | Jeremy J. Kiszka4 | Jamie MacCaulay2 | Doug Gillespie2 | Jonathan Gordon2 | Said Shaib Said5 | Philip S. Hammond2 1 Wildlife Conservation Society Tanzania Program, Tanzania Abstract 2 Sea Mammal Research Unit, Scottish Oceans 1. Many species and populations of marine megafauna are undergoing substantial declines, while Institute, University of St Andrews, St many are also very poorly understood. Even basic information on species presence is unknown Andrews, Fife, UK for tens of thousands of kilometres of coastline, particularly in the developing world, which is a 3 23 Adamson Terrace, Leven, Fife, UK major hurdle to their conservation. 4 Department of Biological Sciences, Florida 2. Rapid ecological assessment is a valuable tool used to identify and prioritize areas for International University, North Miami, FL, USA conservation; however, this approach has never been clearly applied to marine cetaceans. Here 5 Institute of Marine Science, University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania a rapid assessment protocol is outlined that will generate broad‐scale, quantitative, baseline Correspondence data on cetacean communities and potential threats, that can be conducted rapidly and cost‐ Gill T. Braulik, Wildlife Conservation Society effectively across whole countries, or regions. Tanzania Program, Zanzibar, Tanzania. Email: [email protected] 3. The rapid assessment was conducted in Tanzania, East Africa, and integrated collection of data on cetaceans from visual, acoustic, and interview surveys with existing information from multiple Funding information sources, to provide low resolution data on cetacean community relative abundance, diversity, and Pew Marine Fellows, Grant/Award Number: threats.
  • Why Study Bycatch? an Introduction to the Theme Section on Fisheries Bycatch

    Why Study Bycatch? an Introduction to the Theme Section on Fisheries Bycatch

    Vol. 5: 91–102, 2008 ENDANGERED SPECIES RESEARCH Printed December 2008 doi: 10.3354/esr00175 Endang Species Res Published online December xx, 2008 Contribution to the Theme Section ‘Fisheries bycatch problems and solutions’ OPENPEN ACCESSCCESS Why study bycatch? An introduction to the Theme Section on fisheries bycatch Candan U. Soykan1,*, Jeffrey E. Moore2, Ramunas ¯ 5ydelis2, Larry B. Crowder2, Carl Safina3, Rebecca L. Lewison1 1Biology Department, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Dr., San Diego, California 92182-4614, USA 2Center for Marine Conservation, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University Marine Laboratory, 135 Duke Marine Lab Road, Beaufort,North Carolina 28516, USA 3Blue Ocean Institute, PO Box 250, East Norwich, New York 11732, USA ABSTRACT: Several high-profile examples of fisheries bycatch involving marine megafauna (e.g. dolphins in tuna purse-seines, albatrosses in pelagic longlines, sea turtles in shrimp trawls) have drawn attention to the unintentional capture of non-target species during fishing operations, and have resulted in a dramatic increase in bycatch research over the past 2 decades. Although a number of successful mitigation measures have been developed, the scope of the bycatch problem far exceeds our current capacity to deal with it. Specifically, we lack a comprehensive understanding of bycatch rates across species, fisheries, and ocean basins, and, with few exceptions, we lack data on demographic responses to bycatch or the in situ effectiveness of existing mitigation measures. As an introduction to this theme section of Endangered Species Research ‘Fisheries bycatch: problems and solutions’, we focus on 5 bycatch-related questions that require research attention, building on exam- ples from the current literature and the contributions to this Theme Section.
  • SOLUTION: Gathering and Sonic Blasts for Oil Exploration Because These Practices Can Harm and Kill Whales

    SOLUTION: Gathering and Sonic Blasts for Oil Exploration Because These Practices Can Harm and Kill Whales

    ENDANGEREDWHALES © Nolan/Greenpeace WE HAVE A PROBLEM: WHAT YOU CAN DO: • Many whale species still face extinction. • Tell the Bush administration to strongly support whale protection so whaling countries get the • Blue whales, the largest animals ever, may now number as message. few as 400.1 • Ask elected officials to press Iceland, Japan • Rogue nations Japan, Norway and Iceland flout the and Norway to respect the commercial whaling international ban on commercial whaling. moratorium. • Other threats facing whales include global warming, toxic • Demand that the U.S. curb global warming pollution dumping, noise pollution and lethal “bycatch” from fishing. and sign the Stockholm Convention, which bans the most harmful chemicals on the planet. • Tell Congress that you oppose sonar intelligence SOLUTION: gathering and sonic blasts for oil exploration because these practices can harm and kill whales. • Japan, Norway and Iceland must join the rest of the world and respect the moratorium on commercial whaling. • The loophole Japan exploits to carry out whaling for “Tomostpeople,whalingisallnineteenth- “scientific” research should be closed. centurystuff.Theyhavenoideaabout • Fishing operations causing large numbers of whale hugefloatingslaughterhouses,steel-hulled bycatch deaths must be cleaned up or stopped. chaserboatswithsonartostalkwhales, • Concerted international action must be taken to stop andharpoonsfiredfromcannons.” other threats to whales including global warming, noise Bob Hunter, pollution, ship strikes and toxic contamination.
  • 'Bycatch' Whaling a Growing Threat to Coastal Whales 23 June 2009

    'Bycatch' Whaling a Growing Threat to Coastal Whales 23 June 2009

    'Bycatch' whaling a growing threat to coastal whales 23 June 2009 Scientists are warning that a new form of Whales are occasionally killed in entanglements unregulated whaling has emerged along the with fishing nets and the deaths of large whales are coastlines of Japan and South Korea, where the reported by most member nations of the IWC. commercial sale of whales killed as fisheries Japan and South Korea are the only countries that "bycatch" is threatening coastal stocks of minke allow the commercial sale of products killed as whales and other protected species. "incidental bycatch." The sheer number of whales represented by whale-meat products on the market Scott Baker, associate director of the Marine suggests that both countries have an inordinate Mammal Institute at Oregon State University, says amount of bycatch, Baker said. DNA analysis of whale-meat products sold in Japanese markets suggests that the number of "The sale of bycatch alone supports a lucrative whales actually killed through this "bycatch trade in whale meat at markets in some Korean whaling" may be equal to that killed through coastal cities, where the wholesale price of an adult Japan's scientific whaling program - about 150 minke whale can reach as high as $100,000," annually from each source. Baker said. "Given these financial incentives, you have to wonder how many of these whales are, in Baker, a cetacean expert, and Vimoksalehi fact, killed intentionally." Lukoscheck of the University of California-Irvine presented their findings at the recent scientific In Japan, whale-meat products enter into the meeting of the International Whaling Commission commercial supply chain that supports the (IWC) in Portugal.
  • Seafood Watch® Standard for Fisheries

    Seafood Watch® Standard for Fisheries

    1 Seafood Watch® Standard for Fisheries Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Seafood Watch Guiding Principles ...................................................................................................... 3 Seafood Watch Criteria and Scoring Methodology for Fisheries ........................................................... 5 Criterion 1 – Impacts on the Species Under Assessment ...................................................................... 8 Factor 1.1 Abundance .................................................................................................................... 9 Factor 1.2 Fishing Mortality ......................................................................................................... 19 Criterion 2 – Impacts on Other Capture Species ................................................................................ 22 Factor 2.1 Abundance .................................................................................................................. 26 Factor 2.2 Fishing Mortality ......................................................................................................... 27 Factor 2.3 Modifying Factor: Discards and Bait Use .................................................................... 29 Criterion
  • Agenda Item 7.1 Cooperation with Other Bodies Report by The

    Agenda Item 7.1 Cooperation with Other Bodies Report by The

    25th Meeting of the Advisory Committee ASCOBANS/AC25/Inf.7.1a Stralsund, Germany, 17-19 September 2019 Dist.16 August 2019 Agenda Item 7.1 Cooperation with other Bodies Report by the Secretariat, Parties and Partners Information Document 7.1a Report of the IWC Workshop on Bycatch Opportunities in the Western Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea Action Requested Take Note Submitted by International Whaling Commission Note: Delegates are kindly reminded to bring their own document copies to the meeting, if needed. Report of the IWC Workshop on Bycatch Mitigation Opportunities in the Western Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea 8-9th May, 2019, Nairobi, Kenya Participants at the IWC Workshop on Bycatch Mitigation Opportunities in the Western Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea 1 Table of Contents Acronyms and definitions ....................................................................................................................... 5 Executive summary ................................................................................................................................. 6 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 12 1.1 Introductory items ...................................................................................................................... 12 1.2 Opening remarks ......................................................................................................................... 12 1.3 Introduction to the Bycatch Mitigation
  • OCEANA Bycatch Summary V4.Indd

    OCEANA Bycatch Summary V4.Indd

    COLLATERAL DAMAGE: HOW TO REDUCE BYCATCH IN CANADA'S COMMERCIAL FISHERIES oceana.ca 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS 01 executi ve summary 04 glossary and acronyms WHAT IS 05 bycatch is a global issue 06 Harmful gear 08 assessing canada’s bycatch problem bycatch? 10 key fi nding: hundreds of species end up as bycatch 13 key fi nding: there are big holes in the data 16 key fi nding: canada’s regulatory approach to reducing bycatch is collateral damage created by fi shing: the non- bycatch is inadequate target fi sh and ocean wildlife that are captured in nets, 17 methods for monitoring bycatch lines and other gear set for other targeted species. it may 18 msc-certi fi ed fi sheries with the most discards be discarded at sea or brought to port. 24 what’s the soluti on? 25 recommendati ons for fisheries and oceans canada globally, this includes the dolphins that are ensnared to 27 conclusions bring you canned tuna, the sea turtles caught to bring you 28 oceana canada: saving the oceans shrimp and the fl ounder thrown overboard to put seared to feed the world scallops on the menu. it also includes targeted fi sh that are too small to harvest and non-target fi sh with litt le commercial value. Quite simply, poorly managed bycatch is one of the biggest threats to the world’s oceans, contributi ng to the dramati c decline of some fi sh populati ons. Collateral Damage: 2 How to reduce bycatch in Canada’s commercial fi sheries EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Bycatch is one of the biggest threats to ocean health.
  • Wasted Catch: Unsolved Problems in U.S. Fisheries

    Wasted Catch: Unsolved Problems in U.S. Fisheries

    © Brian Skerry WASTED CATCH: UNSOLVED PROBLEMS IN U.S. FISHERIES Authors: Amanda Keledjian, Gib Brogan, Beth Lowell, Jon Warrenchuk, Ben Enticknap, Geoff Shester, Michael Hirshfield and Dominique Cano-Stocco CORRECTION: This report referenced a bycatch rate of 40% as determined by Davies et al. 2009, however that calculation used a broader definition of bycatch than is standard. According to bycatch as defined in this report and elsewhere, the most recent analyses show a rate of approximately 10% (Zeller et al. 2017; FAO 2018). © Brian Skerry ACCORDING TO SOME ESTIMATES, GLOBAL BYCATCH MAY AMOUNT TO 40 PERCENT OF THE WORLD’S CATCH, TOTALING 63 BILLION POUNDS PER YEAR CORRECTION: This report referenced a bycatch rate of 40% as determined by Davies et al. 2009, however that calculation used a broader definition of bycatch than is standard. According to bycatch as defined in this report and elsewhere, the most recent analyses show a rate of approximately 10% (Zeller et al. 2017; FAO 2018). CONTENTS 05 Executive Summary 06 Quick Facts 06 What Is Bycatch? 08 Bycatch Is An Undocumented Problem 10 Bycatch Occurs Every Day In The U.S. 15 Notable Progress, But No Solution 26 Nine Dirty Fisheries 37 National Policies To Minimize Bycatch 39 Recommendations 39 Conclusion 40 Oceana Reducing Bycatch: A Timeline 42 References ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank Jennifer Hueting and In-House Creative for graphic design and the following individuals for their contributions during the development and review of this report: Eric Bilsky, Dustin Cranor, Mike LeVine, Susan Murray, Jackie Savitz, Amelia Vorpahl, Sara Young and Beckie Zisser.
  • Small Cetacean Bycatch As Estimated from Stranding Schemes: the Common Dolphin Case in the 2 Northeast Atlantic

    Small Cetacean Bycatch As Estimated from Stranding Schemes: the Common Dolphin Case in the 2 Northeast Atlantic

    1 Small cetacean bycatch as estimated from stranding schemes: the common dolphin case in the 2 northeast Atlantic 3 4 5 PELTIER Hélène1; AUTHIER Matthieu1, DEAVILLE Rob2, DABIN Willy1, JEPSON Paul 6 D.2, VAN CANNEYT Olivier1, DANIEL Pierre3, RIDOUX Vincent1,4 7 8 1 Observatoire PELAGIS, UMS 3462- Université de La Rochelle-CNRS, 5 allées de l’océan, 9 17000 La Rochelle, France 10 2 Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, Regent’s Park, NW1 4RY London, 11 United Kingdom 12 3 Météo-France, DirOP/MAR, 42 avenue Coriolis, 31057, Toulouse, Cedex, France 13 14 4 Centre d’Etudes Biologiques de Chizé-La Rochelle, UMR 7372- Université de La Rochelle- 15 CNRS, 2, rue Olympe de Gouges, 17000 La Rochelle, France 16 17 Contact author: Hélène PELTIER 18 [email protected] 19 Observatoire PELAGIS, Université de La Rochelle, 5 allées de l’océan, 17000 La Rochelle, 20 France 21 +33 5 46 44 99 10 / +33 6 82 74 08 41 22 23 24 Abstract 25 Death in fishing gear of non-target species (called ‘bycatch’) is a major concern for marine 26 wildlife, and mostly worrying for long-lived species like cetaceans, considering their 27 demographic characteristics (slow population growth rates and low fecundity). In European 28 waters, cetaceans are highly impacted by this phenomenon. Under the Common Fishery 29 Policy, the EC 812/2004 regulation constitutes a legal frame for bycatch monitoring on 5 to 30 10% of fishing vessels > 15 m. The aim of this work was to compare parameters and bycatch 31 estimates of common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) provided by observer programmes in 32 France and UK national reports and those inferred from stranding data, through two 33 approaches.
  • Summary Prepared for the IOTC 15Th

    Summary Prepared for the IOTC 15Th

    IOTC-2020-WPEB16-INF04 Summary prepared for the IOTC 15th Working Party on Ecosystems and Bycatch - Report of the IWC Workshop on Bycatch Mitigation Opportunities in the Western Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea. The International Whaling Commission (IWC) held a technical workshop on Bycatch Mitigation Opportunities in the Western Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea from 8-9 May 2019 in Nairobi, Kenya. The workshop was attended by 50 participants working in 17 different countries, with half of the participants coming from within the Indian Ocean region. Workshop participants included national government officials working in marine conservation and fisheries management, cetacean and fisheries researchers, fisheries technologists, socio-economists and representatives from Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs), inter- and non-governmental organisations. The focal region of the workshop extended from South Africa, north to the Arabian Sea and east to Sri Lanka, including coastal areas, national waters and high seas. The primary objectives of the workshop were to (i) develop a broad-scale picture of cetacean bycatch across the North and Western Indian Ocean region in both artisanal and commercial fisheries; (ii) explore the challenges and opportunities related to the monitoring and mitigation of cetacean bycatch in the western and northern Indian Ocean (Arabian Sea); (iii) identify key gaps in knowledge and capacity within the region and tools needed address these gaps; (iv) introduce the Bycatch Mitigation Initiative (BMI) to Indian Ocean stakeholders and assess how the initiative can be of use; (v) identify potential locations which could serve as BMI pilot projects; (vi) start building collaborations to tackle bycatch at national, regional and international level.
  • 1 Cetacean Occurrence, Habitat Preferences and Potential For

    1 Cetacean Occurrence, Habitat Preferences and Potential For

    1 Cetacean occurrence, habitat preferences and potential for cetacean-fishery 2 interactions in Iberian Atlantic waters: 3 results from cooperative research involving local stakeholders 4 5 Authors: Sabine Goetz1,2, Fiona L. Read2,3, Marisa Ferreira4, Julio Martínez Portela2, 6 Maria Begoña Santos2, José Vingada1,4, Ursula Siebert5, Ana Marçalo1,4, Jorge Santos1,4, 7 Hélder Araújo1,4, Silvia Monteiro4, Mara Caldas2, Marcos Riera6 & Graham J. Pierce1,7 8 9 1 Centro de Estudos do ambiente e do mar (CESAM), Universidade de Aveiro, Campus 10 Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal 11 12 2 Instituto Español de Oceanografía, Centro Oceanográfico de Vigo, PO Box 1552, 13 36200, Vigo, Spain 14 15 3 Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas (C.S.I.C.), Eduardo Cabello 6, 36208 Vigo, Spain 16 17 4Centro de Biologia Molecular e Ambiental (CBMA) / Sociedade Portuguesa de Vida 18 Selvagem (SPVS), Departamento de Biologia, Universidade do Minho, Campus de 19 Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal. 20 21 5Institute for Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Research (ITAW), University of 22 Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation (TiHo), Werftstr. 6, 25761 Büsum, 23 Germany 24 25 6INNFISH Technological Innovation, Av. Gran Via 36 – 4º, 36203 Vigo, Spain 26 27 7Oceanlab, University of Aberdeen, Main Street, Newburgh, Aberdeenshire AB41 6AA, 28 UK 29 30 Corresponding author address: 31 Centro de Estudos do Ambiente e do Mar (CESAM) 32 Universidade de Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago 1 33 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal 34 Tel. +351 234370200; fax. + 351 234370985 35 E-mail address: [email protected] 36 37 Abstract 38 39 1. Iberian Atlantic waters are heavily exploited by Spanish and Portuguese 40 fisheries.